F. F. Fields of N. Y., Inc.
2 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Frito Company, Western Division v. N.L.R.B
330 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1964) Cited 26 timesNos. 18350, 18400. April 7, 1964. Hill, Farrer Burrill and Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner Frito Co. Daniel R. Thompson, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages (No. 18350). Hill, Farrer Burrill, Carl M. Gould, and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus curiae American Research Merchandising Institute (No. 18350). Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel